=====

“The only competition worthy of a wise man is with himself.”

—

Washington Allston

====

“By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”

–

The Civil Servants’ Year Book, “The Organizer” January 1934

========

Ok. This is about the fallacy of the “us versus them” narrative. One of the first temptations in business differentiation is the ‘us versus them’ narrative. Not only is it a natural instinct to identify an enemy <them> to compete against it also naturally generates a competitive spirit as well as survival spirit.

It is incredibly tempting, but incredibly wrong.

Frankly, it is what lazy business leaders and strategists do.

And, in their laziness, they create what is more often than not a false narrative <how can they be the enemy if you hire some of them?>, but it also falls apart as you realize that ‘the enemy’ often has the same intentions you do and often has some aspects of business product, organization, thinking … that you actually like.

That is the failing of an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Well. That is one failing. The ‘us versus them’ narrative is strewn with not only failings, but danger in the larger scheme of things.

Often it is rooted in some ‘conspiracy theme’ within ‘them.’ Them always seem to have a nefarious intent to rule the world, or crush our thinking, or take something away from us or … well … basically undermine all that is good & right about the world “us” sees as what is good & right <and ‘common sense’ to ‘us’>. This theme can tear your business culture apart through paranoia as well as wasted energy constantly defining ‘what is good & right’ <because those damn “thems” keep trying to show us it isn’t good & right>.

Let me suggest several things with regard to the underpinnings of ‘us versus them.’

– Common sense is relative to perspective.

Contrary to popular opinion much of common sense is not universal <therefore less than common>. My main proof point for that is easily the United Nations Human Bill of Rights. One would think there are some common sense beliefs that underline all human behavior, well, at least until you try and gather all the countries in the world and get them to agree to them.

People are no different.

Common sense advocates typically suggest what I call “headline beliefs” of which almost all of us quite easily grasp and nod our head to. It is when we get to the story outlining the hows & whats where everyone starts losing their minds. An ‘us versus them’ narrative in the hands of a charismatic leader can dwell in the headlines. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as ‘day to day behavior’ which needs laws & rules & guidelines in order to establish a relatively fair game in this thing called Life. Businesses are exactly the same.

Here is what I am saying.

In discussing a headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in lock step.

In discussing the details under the headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in slightly different places.

That, alone, is one of the key reasons most reasonable business leaders avoid an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

– Conspiracies may exist but they most typically are within the purview of the few and not the many.

What this means is that there may possibly a small group of people scheming something up, but they remain few because <mainly> the many have no palette for what that few have to offer. In addition the ‘few’ scheming rarely are powerful people.

Yup. Despite what conspiracy theorists posit about cabals of powerful people somehow guiding the globe on its axis, most powerful people who would have an inclination to involve themselves in some nefarious scheming like this would have no desire to collaborate <they are typically of dictator mentality>.

In addition to the non-collaboration aspect the majority of powerful people have less interest in running the world, they are more focused on defending their own empire <and ego>. That is exactly what happens in business.

These people may truly be ‘them’ to ‘us’, but they are not our enemy — they are simply more likely to be indifferent to ‘us.’ It is difficult to invest in an us versus them narrative when ‘them’ doesn’t even care. Most businesses avoid “us versus them” because they have enough trouble maintaining integrity within an organization to have to bring in the whole concept of “thems” manipulating anything.

– Complexity not simplicity.

I could invest page after page outlining how complexity destroys the oversimplified ‘us versus them’ narrative, but I will focus on one aspect – people can rarely be easily bucketed into simplistic character, attitude & behavior descriptions.

Not all accountants are boring or socially inept.

Not all conservatives are against abortions.

Not all liberals are socialists.

Not all religious people are close minded.

Not all French people like wine.

Not all Hawaiians know how to surf.

In business, and sports, you learn this quickly <it seems like politics hasn’t received this memo yet>.

You meet ‘them’ and, uh oh, you not only find you kind of like them, but more often than not <yikes!>, they believe some of the same things you do. The ‘us versus them” narrative can only exist in an environment where oversimplification has a chance to live. Business is anything but simple. So while a crappy, or lazy, leader may find some initial success rallying the organizational troops with an “us versus them” narrative it all falls part pretty quickly.

That is why business people avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Anyway. I read somewhere that if you truly want to defend liberty, the first thing you should do is defend the liberty of people you like the least. But instead, in today’s world, we seem to be spending more time focused on defending the liberty of “me”, and what “me believes” first. Even businesses struggle with this <under the guise of “building a strong culture”>.

Let’s be clear. Leaders — of companies, of organizations, of countries, of any rather difficult to manage and align group of people — realize that if they intend to make something happen that it just needs to be done <sometimes> acting in the best interest of ALL who they lead and do it without discussion because discussion slows the process down.

Is this a conspiracy? Nope.

This is leading. Sometimes you get it right <and good things happen and you never explain all the decision you made without inviting opinions of others> and sometimes you get it wrong <and bad things happen and you (a) keep your mouth shut and just hope the problem goes away or (b) end up explaining every decision minutiae in extraordinary excruciating public discourse>.

I am not suggesting there are not better ways to communicating and aligning an organization than simply ‘doing & telling later’, nor am I suggesting transparency isn’t important in terms of uniting, but I am suggesting that in business sometimes a leader makes a decision because it has to be made, and it is made with the best intentions for “all” and not with bad intent for “us” and a better intent for “them.”

And maybe this is where businesses have truly learned to avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

If you plant the narrative and constantly water it into a healthy belief system within a business, it can then very very quickly become an unhealthy integral part of an organizational DNA viewpoint. Side to side <department to department> as well as down to up <workers – perceived doers/non intellectuals – to management – perceived non-doers/intellectuals>.

Lastly. Here is what the good business leaders have learned as to the most insidious organizational aspect in an ‘us versus them’ narrative:

… take care of their own <the ‘us’> even to the detriment of the “all”

By the way. Crappy leaders love this because it absolves them of responsibility and they can always point to external ‘them’ as the reason why ‘us’ isn’t getting what they believe they deserve.

Regardless. The narrative permits ‘their own’ to be constant victims of whatever ‘them forces’ that are constantly scheming to impede or crush the ‘us’ personal ambitions.

Part of the appeal of us versus them is it’s simplicity.

In a complex, changing world, it is tempting to reduce multifaceted issues to the us-and-them narrative.

The narrative eliminates any context thru oversimplification. Interestingly, the oversimplification actually creates conspiracies/conspiracy speculation and enhances fears by suggesting the complexity doesn’t exist <and people know in their heads there has to be more and create the ‘more’ all on their own>. This, in turn, permits everyone to skip facts and go immediately to emotion from which point “we the people” <whoever ‘we’ is> resides on one side and “the system” or “some idiot who cannot do the right thing” or “a cabal of dishonest untrustworthy thems” on the other. This narrative is particularly tempting to the weak leader these days because general mistrust of everything is at an all time high.

The charismatic crappy leader suggests that the business <the ‘us’ in the equation> has a plan, a good plan, a plan that really will not work only if the ‘thems’ work their mysterious wiles. Trust therefore resides with ‘us’ and mistrust resides with ‘them.’

The us versus them narrative is seductive. Aspects of it sound great, frankly, to any and all of us. That’s why it is so compelling if you are not careful. But the world, and business, is more complex than ‘us versus them.’ A good leader, a leader who understands you are seeking success in the moment, today, tomorrow and next month/year/decade will weigh the true costs, and effects, of investing in the us versus them narrative beyond simply winning.

Ponder. And listen closely to the charismatic jesters who lean in on “use versus them” rhetoric.

=================

“Too many people are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It’s selfish ignorance, and it’s exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people.

Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things I think I should be able to do.  Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other people’s rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own.”

Tony Lawrence

=

========== 

 “There is always a ‘but’ in this imperfect world.”

—-

Anne Brontë 

================

Ok. When I saw this quote I said … “yeah, there really, always, is a ‘but’ in today’s world.”

I sat back and wondered why.

I have a theory.

‘Buts’ are created by a never ending doom-looped “it’s your perspective versus  someone else’s perspective” world.

Think about it.

What you see as normal looks maybe not exactly normal to someone else. To you, your normal is a solid unequivocal fact and because of that belief, naturally, you say it is ‘so’. It is your normal.

Uh oh. You receive … “but” in response.

================= 

“Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.”

Charles Addams

==================

Now. This doesn’t mean your normal is abnormal or un-normal or even weird, just that it receives a caveat from someone else because it doesn’t sinc up exactly with their normal. Yeah. It receives a “but.”

To be clear. This is significantly different than the infamous “yes, but” issue <what I call “but debating”> because that suggests you are wrong.

This ‘but’ is simply a reflection that the world is imperfect <and you are doing just fine>.  All this ‘but’ does is to suggest that we normal people normally view the world through so many different eyes that perfection is impossible. It suggests a reality in which normal has a number of rich & royal hues to it depending on what eyes you view it with.

And you know what? That’s okay.

Sure. That makes clarity between people and ‘alignment’ of people a little trickier. But the truth is that if we don’t get too hung up on the ‘but’ aspects we all pretty much agree on the core normality of everyday life, what people think and what people do.

Ah. And maybe that is where we run into trouble. How do we stop getting hung up on the ‘but’?

We inherently like no ‘buts’ when it comes to something like ‘normal.’ We inherently think of normal maybe not as perfect, but certainly something smoother & a little less ragged edgy.

I cannot figure out if we, as people, just haven’t figured out how to accept two diametrically different thoughts – individuals are individuals <and we should celebrate that> which is not smoothing in interactions versus things go a shitload more smoothly if we think and act a little more like each other.

Or.

If it is we conceptually understand that the world is imperfect and that people will not fit perfectly together with regard to beliefs & attitudes, but that realistically we believe we have hammered out ‘normal’ in our own heads so well that we just think that the other people just have not rigorously hammered away on their own beliefs and thoughts enough to get to where we are.

Either way. Both thoughts I just shared can only have one destination — a ‘but.’

Well. Full disclosure: I tend to believe I am a little unusual in that I like hearing a ‘but.’

I tend to believe most people would much rather that the other people just nod their heads wisely, agree or just say nothing, and everyone moves along happily unaware that there was actually a ‘but’ left unsaid.

Me?

A ‘but’ makes me cock my head a little.

Makes me think.

I like to think my view of normal has some chinks in it. Has some flaws. Some imperfections.

In other words. My normal has some places that it can be improved. I am not sure 90% of people like to think something like “normal” can be improved. I mean … what the hell … normal is supposed to be normal, right?

Kind of some standard upon which 90% of people kind of stand on, right?

And you know what? They are correct. 90% of normal truly is normal.

The ‘but’ resides in one of two places:

1) in a crack within the 90% which actually may be improvable in some way <let’s call that the natural imperfections within normal>, or

2) in the 10% which represents the true individuality each of us represents.

Holy shit.

If you look at it that way, a ‘but’ doesn’t seem so frickin’ bad. It kind of seems to make sense… not as aggravating.

Anyway. That’s just my theory. And maybe that’s why I just don’t think a ‘but’ is that bad. I would argue ‘but’ has a tough time in today’s world because it seems to grapple with an unhealthy relationship with perfection. My guess is my theory falls apart if everyone would embrace imperfection a little more. Ponder that before you say ‘but.’

=============

“To understand another human being you must gain some insight into the conditions which make him/her who they are.”

Margaret Bourke-White

==============

Theme:

The pandemic is different than the financial driven recessions. In those people simply came out of it clearly in one of 2 groups (the haves and the have nots) and this crisis while the institutions may come under responsibility, or structural, scrutiny this will have more of an attitudinal or ‘out of any human control’ halo effect. That said. It would be a mistake to assume an even dispersion of impact (there will be haves and have-nots as well as winners & losers).

** note: This is a political/societal issue, not a brand issue. Brands/businesses should focus on their specific segments within people impacted.

The Narrative Collapse:

In this case all we learned was the fragility of life – in totality. This creates an overarching impact (a structural aspect to 100% of people) that we are now living within which could be described as a Narrative Collapse. We have conceptually lost the plot.

“During narrative collapse, everyone temporarily abandons attempts to reach narrative consensus even within their smallest default groups, such as family. It’s not that we don’t trust narrative sources when we lose the plot. That’s a simpler problem for normal times. It’s that the narrative sources are temporarily at a loss and don’t know what to say.”

Venkatesh Rao

The larger global narrative all the way down to the individual narrative has collapsed. Not unlike shaking an etch a sketch, the narratives have been derailed and a new narrative has yet to take shape. This deconstructs a variety of myths – we have it better than we think, systems protect us, personal responsibility, self reliance is the key to success – and doesn’t really offer us a cohesive narrative to take its place yet. As society, globally, faces the collapse of the narrative during the Covid phase the pieces of the narrative to come, the post Covid phase, are assembling. This will most likely not appear as some totally original narrative but rather an adaptation of what was before – a morphing of practices, systems, attitudes, beliefs & old with new.

The new narrative will carry the same theme – ‘meaningful progress is that which brings us closer to future relevance/success’, yet, will be framed in a different context and environment in which to progress. People will subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, recognize the relationship between antifragility/fragile systems & life and the importance of an overarching narrative (even with dissonant aspects) are inextricably linked.

It would also appear that a narrative collapse creates a sense of ‘flattening’ in which the haves mean less than the have nots if but for a period of time.

** note: power dynamics will certainly shape the what remains of the old and what is created anew in the post-Covid era

When the larger narrative collapses the traditional ‘have-nots’, the people who we see as working-class people, like the FedEx guy, the server in the restaurant, the check-in person at the hotel and even the person who cleans the rooms, will actually know more than anyone else on what the real ongoing narrative is. It will be these people who will see the patterns that remain within the collapse as well as the pieces/parts which will help craft the future narrative.

** the fragile dissonant narrative

The patterns of an aligned narrative are complex, not linear. In an infinite loop of accepted truths, accepted fragility, accepted imperfections balanced by needs, desires, aspirations in which different individuals create a coherence without consistency between segments. In its imbalance there is a fragile balance.  In fact, it is within the dissonance in which can be found the ongoing progress necessary to improve upon the narrative. The larger narrative has to have enough common elements among the larger public in order to permit individuals to live their own narratives within the larger narrative.

Environmental Contextual shift- Sociological dynamics post-Covid:

The effect of the pandemic on individual attitudes and behavior will arise in a complex mix of self, interdependence, control and impact.

A pandemic doesn’t necessarily destroy the underlying construct of how life is conducted (economically, infrastructure, essential services, etc) but it does shift the contextual view of how life is lived within that construct. In other words, people will view the environment in which their lives, successes, progress and future resides within. The pandemic has amplified interconnectedness, need for social (proximity to people), importance of communication, sheer randomness/uncertainty of life (even if you work hard and do what’s right) and, from a 30000 foot view – made people reflect upon what they can, and cannot control.

While, pragmatically, many people will come out of this with less money – individuals who had nothing will most likely have even less, young people who have struggled to gain traction will have been set back even more, retirements will look farther away and governments (who spent lavishly to fortify a business world that most likely, in hindsight, will show didn’t need it) will have no money to invest in future initiatives (climate change, infrastructure, arts, etc).

** note: contrary to perception the working class people may actually come out of this phase relatively unchanged financially because they don’t have 401ks & they have remained working.

Control

Simplistically, even if someone comes out of the Covid phase unscathed personally they will recognize that it is partially because of a simple luck of the draw. It will not undermine the belief if you work hard and focus on doing the right things that you increase the likelihood of success but it will increase the belief that Life is, at best, a gambler’s game.

Ultimately it will make people reassess control – what they can, and cannot, control. This will most likely bifurcate along lines of “extreme self-interest” (a zero-sum game mentality) and “high recognition of interdependence” (mutual dependency). While this attitude currently exists, the pandemic will most likely shift the proportional mix, I.e., more segments (each of which will assume their own identity) will view the importance of interdependence on their individual interest as more important than sole self-interest. This most likely will translate into “coherent communities can control things better than just me doing what I can.”

** note: this increases the importance of self to community dialogue alignment.

We will most likely find that ‘control’ will have to be through individual action connected to a likeminded community because we will find the money to take control difficult to find.

The money

Setting aside the questioning of effectiveness of capitalism and globalization, government has mortgaged addressing future issues by spending money to address the current issue. In other words, there is no money. This has always been a subconscious default to absolve one of aspects of personal responsibility.  Post Covid attitudes will partially be shaped by there is no place to hide from the responsibilities that impact our future (big & small).

** note: this will vary among the haves and the have nots and those who worked while others didn’t work

Money has always been as aspect of our individual sense of control. If I have enough money I can ‘control’ my own destiny (needs & happiness). If government has enough money, they should be able to ‘do’ certain things to insure a better future. This may not all be actually true but it framed attitudes. With no governmental safety net incremental monies and individuals more protective of their own money, individuals will seek to do things that don’t cost (directly). Maybe said another way, money outlays will consider making a statement at the same time (e.g., if I buy a car, I will most likely think a bit more about what it says about me and what statement it makes). The lack of money actually increases the larger sense of self and interdependence.

Independence/interconnectedness

It sounds trite to say “we live in a global world now” and “we’re in this together”, but the pandemic will buttress up understanding of that and, more importantly, attitudinally imprint the fact ‘everything is connected with everything’.

The evolution of human ethics and personal responsibility can be seen as the expansion of a sense of identification with an ever-widening scope: individual, between two individuals, community/organization, between two nations, global. As the narrative holds, even within wax & waning, our concerns include the needs and interests of a larger group. We recognize the survival and wellbeing, of people and the narrative, is linked to our own.

This generates a sense of interdependence where all progress is not a burden but rather an expansion of who and what you are. We are not responsible for coronavirus but we can be responsible in the way we act moving forward. This all leads to ‘individual meaning’ as part of mutually assured development. we neared an edge (no one actually thought it would lead to extinction) where we saw a world situation beyond our capacity to affect the arc and the outcome. We lost any semblance of control of our own fate. Yet. At the exact same time in doing so we also near the edge of any breakthrough – an idea of how we, as individuals, can affect outcome. There is actually an individual/self empowerment found within the recognition of interdependence.

Self

1. Social

Self-isolation, the behavior that is now required of us, is reminding everyone how much they actually like being with other people. While in social environments we tended to focus on the dissonant, and dysfunctional, aspects of it and now extricated from that environment we have the ability to view that dysfunctionality as functional dissonance with positive impact on our well being. We have a deeper sense of the co-relationship between self-choices and greater consequences. We have a deeper sense that humans are not meant to be alone (there is a general craving for ‘social’). Even introverts, while not becoming extroverted, seek the random social interaction of the proximity of other human beings.

2. Meaning

Maybe more importantly is people will seek to self identify some ‘meaning’ or a relevance realization (the cognitive machinery of a person in dynamic relationship with its environment). As the larger narrative collapses individuals struggle to understand how they fit (they lose context) and therefore start seeking better understating of their own narrative (meaning and realization of relevance). This will most likely arise in terms of tying themselves to visceral choices to frame their own personal choice (a search for ‘relevance realization’ which will most likely be embodied through personal statements – purchases which reflect personal relevance) tied to some smaller behavioral choices. People will seek to find their ‘fit’ within the larger narrative as it is reestablished. Psychologically the individual will be faced with an uncomfortable paradox – a period in time when without a larger narrative they will seek to identify their own narrative to find traction toward controlling their own fate/destiny during a period of time in which they have recognized much of what Life contains is out of their control.

** note: relevance realization is purposeful decision-making, choice making, to embrace statements reflective of ‘meaningfulness’ to a larger world

Impact

This will split between have and have nots. I don’t believe the haves will veer too far from a pursuit of “things”, but the have nots (those who lost things in this crisis) will veer toward a pursuit of impact.

While we cannot control the future we can create, and co-create, the conditions of the future we want. This demands an artful balance of self-interest and public good (self interest cannot be separated in the long run from the interests of the world).  Someone once called this ‘mutually assured development.’

People, finally freed from the grip of a global pandemic, will never forget the difficult period that made them see the precariousness of the human condition. We have learned there is no place to hide from responsibility to our own fate.

For the most part people, even within tighter budgets, will seek to address issues that can no longer be ignored (including environmental/social issues). Thousands of people will eye everyday life with a newfound respect and seek, sometimes creatively, to create some resilience to their lives (just in case planning) as well as seek, sometimes creatively, to embrace some futuristic-like aspects.

Where do we go from here – rebuilding the narrative:

Its not a negative view of reality nor positive, but rather a grasp of a pragmatic view in which personal statements become more important. That each personal statement embodies an identity aspect (in viewing a larger societal/global issue).

** note part 1: this can translate into positioning brands as a personal statement. A reflection of self identification. People are creatures who seek meaning and in the aftermath of a crisis in which many people reflected upon their meaning they will most likely see that meaning does not come by chasing anything but rather dedicating themselves, or a part of their identity, to  something larger than just their narrow concerns.

Once through the Covid phase the larger global narrative will most likely take shape in quite a similar fashion to what the narrative was before. The frame and framing may look similar, but it will now take on a stronger sense of fragility – people will accept the narrative in a looser way. Within that ‘looseness’ the individual will build stronger personal narratives WITHIN the larger narrative. With a dimension of acceptance that there are some things out of one’s control people will seek to make stronger personal statements on what they feel like what they CAN control – their identity tied to beliefs. If we had appeared to shift away from brands as personal statements events have moved people closer back to wearing, buying and investing in things that stand for what they believe in.

There will be a higher level of dissonance as individuals struggle to find a reestablished narrative. We should not confuse this with ‘change’ or ‘things will never go back to the way they are’ it is simply the mechanics of creating a new narrative within a new attitudinal context.

Conclusion.

It is difficult to judge the meaning of events in our lives until we come to understand the outcome, or consequences. The answer awaits the unfolding of future historical events and human responses. Whether we judge this event, or phase in time, as fortunate or unfortunate is a function of how the human race, people, responds to the pressure of the moment and challenge that this threat exerted upon our life, lives and narrative construct. Peace, calm or dissonant, resides in the restructuring of a narrative in which we can all fall into a rhythm again.

“Whatever befalls the Earth, befalls the sons and daughters of the Earth. Continue to contaminate the bed you sleep in and you will one day suffocate in it.”

Chief Seattle, Nez Perce – 1850’s to President Pierce

From an individual perspective I just don’t see large-scale change, i.e., ‘things will never be the same’ shifts. The current Covid crisis amplified beliefs in the fragility of systems and attitudinal dissonance (all the things I wasn’t happy with). Any ‘change’ in individual behavior will most likely be tied to attitudes/beliefs and not due to ‘large scale change.’

From a larger systemic “how we do business” perspective (including businesses), I just don’t see large scale, i.e., future of work will never be the same, shifts. It is more likely:

• Self isolation reminds business how much social interaction matters (the randomness of connectivity)
• Remote working highlights selective distant interactions yet limitations on a larger scale.
• Systemic failures will be seen as poor planning of existing systems rather than old ineffective systems (scenario planning may increase, supply chain/JIT inventory will be reassessed, agile aspects of an organization will be explored).

It is more likely people, as individuals, will not make radical changes, but rather morph attitudes and behavior to a revised context.

It is more likely any business changes will not be reflective of “learning that improves the way we do business” but rather “selective learnings that make our business less fragile/more resilient.

Look.

I’ve been arguing with futuristic pontificators and ‘this is going to change everything’ & ‘no normal’ people for weeks. I am not a futurist nor a predictor, but try this prediction. This pandemic will not completely change the ‘world order’ or even people attitude & behavior etch a sketch. Yes. it will have an underlying attitude effect mostly because it has made most people realize control is an illusion.

But. The narrative construct will remain intact.

On the ‘power deck’ (the captains & owners) the seating order may shift a bit. But. This was already happening because of populist/isolation leadership. The world ‘order’ was already shifting. power holds on with ragged claws.

On the engine deck some parts may be replaced, pieces updated, but the same engines will remain in place. Yes. Some new ships, with new engines, will seek to enter the market. But the old engines & ships will not go away.

On the passenger deck I think it’s a mistake to see systemic change, everyone still wants to go on a cruise of Life. But. We should seek to see *segments* change attitudes/behaviors & maybe some ‘lily pads’ of change (selective change). recognizing those lily pads is key.

And in the bilge (the people who have been screwed forever) they will laugh at the concerns of the passengers & captains as the musings of indulged people who fear losing what they have because if you have nothing you don’t fear losing things, you only fear losing hope.

I imagine what I am suggesting is that the narrative didn’t really collapse, we just have lost the plot. And that is not the same.

===================

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct.

Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.”

—-

Brian Cox

================

 “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

—–

Martin Luther King

==================

I seem to find myself in more arguments and debates and discussions with regard to common sense, gut instinct and actual “learning” <knowledge> than is most likely healthy for me.

My sense is that I am not the only one.

To be clear.

For those who care to research it, in general, our instincts suck.

For those who care to research it, in general, common sense is most typically not that common <or representative of reality & truth> nor does it make sense <unless you are looking back at what has been done and not forward thinking about what could be done>.

For those who care to research it, in general, learned people <either formal knowledge gathering or informal incessant curiosity knowledge seekers> tend to be more right more often and less right less often.

For those who care to research it, in general, sincere ignorance has reached plague proportions.

I sometimes feel like we, in America, mistakenly wandered back into a cave. And in that cave we can find shelves filled with sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity available for anyone to take.

Now. We do not lack for excuses for not knowing shit we should know or investing some energy to gain some well needed knowledge. The conventional excuses are time, distractions, overwork, hectic lives, alternative facts, “I already know”, etc.

The list is fairly long and quite accessible to the everyday schmuck.

So while they may be representative of sincere actions they are also representative of sincere purposeful excuses from the strenuous job of thinking.

From an intellectual standpoint this means we remain in a continuous doom loop of Hegelian Dialectic, in fact, never leaving the loop which means ignorance is always at hand and reality is always out of reach.

From my perspective this doom loop encourages us to stay in the cave we are in and just believe what we believe and use our energy for anything other than thinking because we need energy for anything other than thinking.

What you believe to be true, is it true?

Or do you just believe that it is true because you were taught that it was true and you never looked any further?

 

This is sad. It is sad because we seem to have lost the ability to think. It may be even sadder that we have purposefully decided to abstain from thinking. And, overall, it’s sad because where we should see thinking and thoughtfulness we only see faux intellectualism and random absurd theories. It is sad because all of this suggests our mental limits are some simplistic tripe soundbites and clever labels <which I would suggest are poorly understood heuristic propaganda tools>.

We seem to have forgotten that what most likely got us out of the cave was, well, enlightened conflict. And when I say conflict I mean ‘what you think versus what I think’ & ‘what you know versus what you could know’ because all the rest is simply trappings and ego/identity/power crap.

For it was within the conflict of ideas and debate in which the people in the cave learned, and unlearned, which inevitably got all of us people to leave the frickin’ cave.

As I have written before there is certainly a battle going on with regard to being an expert <and believed> and certainly anything associated with ‘intellectual’ is poisoned in everyday households.

   =============

“An intellectual? Yes.

And never deny it.

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.”

Albert Camus

======================

I could argue we stay in the cave for a variety of reasons, but today I will suggest that true thinking has taken a back seat to greed and self-interest <which is less about thinking and more about outcomes>.

The effect of this is that a shitload of people really have no knowledge of their own. And that leads to a mind & thought process almost solely grounded in common opinion.

Well. If thought is a commodity, than from that point on the objective of greed & self-interest isn’t about thinking it is simply about playing the game well <and winning>. The problem with this is that in any game there are winners and there are losers <even though everyone hopes to win>.

Uhm.

Games are for winners and losers.

Thinking is not a game.

Life is not a game.

Using popular numbers in today’s rhetoric t make my point, in a winner-take-all game, the top 0.1% win, the winners share some of their winnings with the 2^nd and 3^rd place winners <let’s call them the remaining people of the top 1%> and 99% are losers.

I imagine what I am suggesting is that a system that rewards only the top 1% winners ensures that everyone else loses which creates a sense that 99% of people just cannot think effectively  <I am not sure how that is good for the emotional well-being of a society>..

Well. I purposefully highlighted the Hegelian doom loop earlier because in that scenario we can think about how to break this doom loop cycle.

And, yes, this takes some <gulp> thinking.

In my simplistic mind I focus on benefits. What I mean by that is in today’s world no one sees benefits in thinking and only seeing benefits in not thinking and playing some game.

We need to reprogram that which has conditioned us into this fixed and, frankly, limiting mindset.

Here is the simplest thing I can point to – reality.

Reality 1: If everyone, 100%, thinks and debates and creates new ideas and adapt status quo to new realities … well … 100% has a chance to win. And even the 99% who don’t really “win” tangibly will win by being part of the progress <this is not conceptual mumbo jumbo … this is what any business leader with half a brain knows and does with their employee base>.

Reality 2: If everyone, 100%, doesn’t think and maintains the way we do things now … well … 1% truly has a chance to win.

Oh. And once you enter the winners’ circle you actually increase the odds you will win again.

Oh. And once you become a 99% loser you actually increase the odds you will lose again.

I have to tell ya.

Lay this out like that to people and I am not so sure a shitload of people are gonna like option number 2.

Let’s face it. We have become a “non-thinking” society as we have become, as a society, less people and more & more labels of some objectified economic relationship like producers and consumers, buyers and sellers, service providers and service users.

In fact. If you do not have one of those labels, you are an outcast.

Now. In America that ‘outcast’ group is relatively small. Almost all of America participates in consumerism. Globally only a relatively small percentage of global population is participating in consumerism. The majority of population is struggling to meet the very basic requirements of life such as proper food, shelter and healthcare. That said. We have significantly increased intellectual poverty – in America and globally.

Mentally we are now back in a cave.

Mentally we are living in a state of denial and a sincere ignorance towards the fact that we have created a system where thinkers & thinking have little value and even less of a perceived potential reward to the majority of people. The result of that is the majority of the world then competes in a winner take all game in which those in power <past winners> tend create money out of thin air while owning as much as they want.

What this really means is that thinking is unnecessary to become rich.

It only requires a person to be lucky to be born into a past winner family. Which means if you are in the 99% you can be a frickin’ genius and getting rich is still more like a game of chance where the odds of ‘winning’, becoming rich, through talent are very rare.

Well.

That is fucked up.

What we need to understand is that self-interest, competition and gaining profit at the expense of others, and thinking, is not particularly fair to the 100%, but it is also not particularly helpful for any meaningful progress as a society.

What we need to understand is that we are all huddled in a cave – the 99 & the 1. Together.

We must stop following blindly the ideas of what we know but rather open our eyes to what we do not know.

Here is what I know.

If everyone is thinking, everyone is debating, everyone is questioning ‘gut instinct’ and common sense, 100% has a chance of winning and 100% will get better in some form or fashion.

In the world we live in today the thinkers are more likely to lose than some idiots who simply know how to play the game better. Think about that. Yeah. Think. That is fucked up. I want a world with smarter idiots, less sincere ignorance and thinkers to have a chance of winning on occasion.

I actually want a world where no one lives in a cave.

originally published July 2017

——

“There are many kinds of crime. I’ve always thought the most unforgivable is to have a gift and turn your back on it.”

=

Ruth Reichl

——-

I believe everyone has a gift. It may be big, may be small, may be somewhere in between, but everyone has some gift. That said. Here is what I think about having some talent and using it (or not using it).

We are truly a forgiving society.

Yes.

Quick to blame and chastise.

But. Just as quick to forgive <after bludgeoning you with some self-righteous indignation>. But society does not even have an opportunity to forgive you <or bludgeon you> with this particular crime because turning your back on a gift is actually an unseen crime <most of the time>.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

This means you can commit this crime and never be punished. Never be chastised. Oh. And never have the opportunity to be forgiven.

What I mean is that even if society does notice it may simply cast a glance at you wasting your gift and forgive you despite the fact you are actually cheating the world of your gift. This is the crime of missed opportunity (the world’s opportunity to gain from your gift). Let’s call this “ignorance is bliss.”

On the other hand.  Yourself? The unforgivable crime is really to oneself.

I could list all the reasons why someone ignores their gift, some may seem silly and some may seem realer than anything in Life, but ignoring is ignoring. Period.

Let me be clear.

Having a gift does NOT mean that Life is any easier. In fact it may make it tougher on occasion and you certainly would have to learn to say ‘fuck you’ to critics & doubters &, well, a shitload of people who do not have a discernible gift.

Hell.

You even have to say ‘fuck you’ to even people who recognize you have a gift. I will say that having a gift can be construed as a burden because it comes with some pressure. Oddly I wrote about this burden & pressure aspect awhile back citing Andy Roddick of all people.

But.

The list of ‘why we ignore‘ doesn’t matter.

Good reasons or bad reasons it is a crime to turn your back on your gift.

I am so unequivocal on this because while I do believe all of us have something to offer and all of us can contribute in some form or fashion in the world, not everyone has the same gift.

Sorry to tell people that.

Some of us schmucks just muddle thru Life doing the best we can with what we have. We have no real gift that impacts beyond a very small impact or have some spectacular talent other than maybe being able to survive the grind successfully with character & a good moral compass <which ain’t bad by the way>.

But if you are one of the happy few who do have a gift that CAN make a larger impact you can’t simply say “uhm, I would like to return this gift” … shit … you cannot even regift it.

Once you have a gift it is a non transferable non returnable gift exclusive to you.

Do not use? It never gets used. Once again. This may sound sad, even disappointing, it is neither, it is an unforgivable crime.

Ok. But why do most people ignore their gift? I imagine is really is not fear, it is simply about waiting until it is too late.

It’s kind of crazy, isn’t it?

We have a habit of believing a future moment will end up being more important than the present. We simply keep holding off for some better time or moment we are sure <see: imagine> will be better to display the gift we have.

—

“Most humans are never fully present in the now, because unconsciously they believe that the next moment must be more important than this one.  But then you miss your whole life, which is never not now.”

Eckhart Tolle

—

Anyway. Whether it is natural to wait for a better moment, or some ‘more important time to step up in the future‘, suffice it to say that not using a gift you have in the here & now — this special talent given to you and only you — is not a waste. You are simply committing a crime in the here & now.

And that crime is truly unforgivable if you know you have this gift and simply ignore it.

Shit.

Just think about what I have written a little.

If you truly have a gift, a gift you are fairly sure can contribute to a greater good in some way, ignore all the reasons to not use your gift.

Ignore all the reasons to not foster your gift.

And be the best you can be. Why? Because while it is a crime to deprive the world of the potential your gift may offer it the biggest crime is to yourself – you will not maximize who & what you could be. Now THAT is a crime.

—————

“And the nights, bigger than imagining: black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars.”

—–

Donna Tartt 

=============== 

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

―

T.S. Eliot

==========

Well. Despite the fact most nights remain the same amount of hours, minutes and seconds day to day, a sleepless night can often look bigger than imagined. I have found that sleepless nights are less about restless minds and more about capacity in a squeezed space.

Huh?

Let me tackle squeezed first.

In general the world is a pretty vast place and our lives can seem fairly inconsequential.

The good news about this is that within all that vastness there is a lot of room to let some of the more horrible or horribly mundane crap just slip by.

The bad news occurs when all of a sudden Life, and the world, shrinks and you feel squeezed. And this can happen a lot easier than one may think.

Ponder what I am going to say as “the big squeeze.”

Everyday everyone faces some naturally occurring ‘shrinking’ aspects which in and of themselves can’t shrink your Life enough to matter. Let’s just say this is the daily grind of work, chores and family & Life commitments. Some things go well and some things don’t.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that “don’t” significantly outnumber the things that “do.” because this is day to day shit I view this as getting squeezed from the sides. They kind of suffocate you a little.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you have that ad hoc shit you have to plan to get done — the faucet is dripping, the car engine light is on, someone hit the mailbox, crap like that. 95% of the time this kind of shit never goes as planned. It takes too long or it doesn’t get done right the first time or … well … suffice it to say … the easy stuff never gets done as easily as you would want.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that never get done as easily as you want actually end up just not going right. This is stupid little shit … but maybe think about it as maybe getting squeezed from underneath – an unexpected aggravating shift on the ground below you.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you turn on the TV or maybe scan the internet news breaks and … well … some shit has hit the fan. Your country has made some monumental decision that seems to shift its place in the world.

Some nutjob terrorist has committed some heinous act to innocent people.

Some “thing” happens that feel like a shift in the bedrock of ‘what is.’ It may not directly affect you but you sense that it is a monumental thing which will most likely affect you <even though you aren’t sure how yet>. This is big shit … this just makes you feel a little like the weight of the world has gotten a little heavier and the world as you have known it has become a little murkier. You are getting squeezed from above.

But set that aside for a moment.

Now. I will now get to capacity.

Let’s assume on one day all there of things happen … you get squeezed all on one day. Oddly, this becomes a test of your capacity <which implies largeness>. And, yes, maybe it is about largeness. As in how large you can remain as you get squeezed.

Some nights it isn’t easy to not get suffocated.

Other nights you find your capacity and push back a little.

Most nights you find just enough largeness to not get, well, too little.

But the nights in which all three aspects I outlined squeezed you I would suggest the word ‘forlorn’ comes to mind. 

====================

“Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.”

J.R.R. Tolkien

=============

I use forlorn because I associate it with capacity as I am discussing it today. Forlorn has a sense of shrinking to it in that the good in Life seems to shrink and that which is bad seems to grow and you are left with that wretched forlorn feeling which dogs you throughout a sleepless night. Forlorn seems like it is more appropriate than lonely or lonesome in that it specifically embraces a senses of wretchedness and desertion or abandonment … in my mind … ‘despairing of the arrival of a friend … in this case … a friend called Hope.”

To me all of what I just shared with regard to squeezing and capacity captures the essence of the worst of the worst sleepless nights. And, if I were a betting man, I would bet we have all had a few of these.

Ok. Here is what I know.

Most of us get through these nights. Despite the vast emptiness of a night, more vast than we imagined it should be, we cast about among the chaos of the stars and find some light. I like to think of it as we clamber through the clouds and exist.

===============

“I will clamber through the clouds and exist.”

John Keats

==============

And the outcome of most of these nights, in addition to being tired, is out of the gauntlet of forlornness we seem to come out with a degree of hope. Hope for a better day <at minimum> and maybe Hope for something better <at maximum>.

In other words, out of the bigness which seems to squeeze us, if but for a moment, we rummage through a sleepless night … one black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars … and come out a little less black, a little more calm, a little more ordered and a little more focused on some star.

————————–

===============

“Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

–

Robert Frost

=============

Well. This is about social media, what you put into the social media world and how you own what you write.

Now. I write a blog.

In fact. A couple thousand pieces and a couple million words worth of writing. In my mind … I have something to say and I say it. Maybe it all means nothing and as Frost suggests … I am one of those who have nothing to say but say it.

Regardless. If I say it … I own my words.

I say this because we are edging into a world where people are of an age that are shifting into leadership positions, positions of influence, who have blogs or have written for blogs. And, uh oh,  they are being demanded to justify their words, thoughts and ideas. In other words, they are being asked to own their words. They may have had nothing to say, but they said something and now they have to explain something about their nothing.

This is all incredibly interesting <and slightly amusing> to me because if you go online you will find thousands of writing advice columns <usually formatted in the heinous listicles and written by self righteous older people> written for the attention of young people warning them of the dangers of what they put online and how it can affect their future employment.

The amusing part? I found none <zero> advice columns directed toward … well … me <self righteous older people>.

And you know why? Because we older folk are supposed to know better.

Sadly.

Some of us do not know better.

There are lawyers seeking higher positions, business people seeking a seat in a C-level suite and even doctors seeking to shift into a more general business world who are finding that their words are following them <and they need to own them>.

And, no, “it was just my personal opinion on my personal blog” doesn’t hack it. If you shared a thought, you own the words in how you shared it, therefore, you own the thought AND the words. Period.

To be fair … I will spend a second in the tricky part.

Is the past a predictor?

Should we waste our time revisiting the blog writings of someone who most likely sat down and vented personal thoughts on things of matter?

And … maybe more importantly … should we be held accountable for words we decided to put down and share on the world wide web?

Simplistically I would say … of course we should be held accountable for the words then just as, of course, what we said then may be different than what we would say now and we need to own those words too <and justify the difference>.

Simplistically I would say … it is indefensible to solely make a stand on ‘you said it because you can’ and , simplistically, it is indefensible to simply say ‘that was then and this is now.’

My point? If you write, you own the words. Therefore, use words with care.

I don’t have time for many blogs, the daily diaries, the motivational tripe, the pieces that don’t really have a point, emotional directionless solution-lacking pieces … these have some value in some ways, but they aren’t really the potent things <albeit … you own those words too so be careful>.

But many blogs are there to make a point. And if you make a point, you own it.

Oh. And … you own the words you use to make that point.

I make no mistake when I post something in that I know when I open my mind and share my words they represent a potent formula that can be drunk with pleasure or peril. I know whether it is a large presentation, a one-on-one discussion or a 998 word post on my blog I am doing so as a public speaker.

I own my words. I own my thoughts.

=============

“Words are singularly the most powerful force available to humanity. We can choose to use this force constructively with words of encouragement, or destructively using words of despair. Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate and to humble.”

Yehuda Berg

=============

I am surprised when older people get trapped in business discussions having to discuss things they may have written. I am surprised because I know when I write and share those words I can use these words as a constructive force or a destructive force. And with either path I own what I construct as well as own what I deconstruct.

Now. What also surprises me a little is that older people who have blogs or write opinion pieces are not young inexperienced people but, if you are making a point, you really do know that simply ranting or using some childish phrasing or hyperbolic rhetoric diminishes what you have to say.

And I say that knowing I am free with the swear words and generous with snarkiness.

But what helps me is that I have found over time that conceptually I write in the same framework as I learned how to communicate in the professional world. Stylistically it is me … all me <maddening to some people who visit the site>, but the framework resides in what I have always believed is the most simplistic way to create a simple message.

Sure. I may not communicate what I want to say simply, but underneath the swear words, the snarkiness, the faux intellectualism and the casual use of grammar resides a desire to hit what I have always believed is the message simplicity bullseye <by the way … anyone, blogger, opinion writer and even a communications agency can use this simplistic guide>.

The bullseye.

On one axis, the horizontal, you are bookended in framing.

On one end is whatever issue & solution I can offer — functionally what I have to offer <my experience, my ideas, my thinking> — followed in toward the bullseye by … well … me, the writer, and who I am and what I stand for <so that my thinking gets filtered through who and what I am … lets call that my character>.

On the other end is the need or want – functionally what is needed – followed in toward the bullseye by what the situation, or people, may desire <or think they desire> so that pragmatism gets filtered through the sometimes random irrational minds of people.

The other axis, the vertical, is even simpler … hero, conflict and resolution. It is basic story telling applied to ideas.

I want to offer a hero <it can be an idea> which can enter into a conflict unflinchingly, or flinchingly if appropriate, and offer a resolution. Simple stories work the best and, as one writer articulated it … “incorporate elements of hero, conflict, and goal.”

All this permits me even in my most dry pieces to attempt to offer my version of a story which, as stories are supposed to do, address deeper and enduring emotional levels tapping into personal  “issues” such as self-esteem <conformity versus individuality>, self-doubt and economic wellbeing.

Everyone who writes should have a story. They shouldn’t toss out words thoughtlessly, or worse, irreverently.

Anger doesn’t guide a good story <typically>, but as long as you continue to aim forward the bullseye even an anger driven critique can end up in an okay place when viewed by someone in the future.

And all of that matters if you assume at some point someone will demand you own your words.

The story formula is simple:

1. Pick what matters <a conflict>
2. Offer a distinct meaningfully view, hero and resolution
3. Imbue with your personality & character <which will inevitably be captured in the hero aspects>.

I could argue, and I would, that if you stay within this framework what you write today will be representative of something you want to say tomorrow. You may not want to say exactly the same thing today, or tomorrow, as you did in the past but you will most likely be able to leverage from the past to what you want to say.

I mention this today not just to share my framework for writing, but rather because many people my age, or slightly younger, are being measured more and more by the words they shared online. And more and more of them are finding that they have to choose between what they believe in <most likely reflected in something they wrote in the past> and what they need to say to get what they want in the moment.

That seems kind of nuts to me … that choice I mean.

What I want today should be aligned with what I believe in. I can take a fairly hard stance on a variety of issues, and I have, but I also hope that my heroes & resolutions reflect adaptability to other’s views and the situation at hand. When I do meet new business people or people I haven’t seen in a while and sometimes they bring up something I have written … well … let’s say 5 years ago … I am good. I am okay with it. I may not think exactly what I did then, but my basic beliefs have not changed.

It surprises me when some fairly qualified people have not assumed that stance in what they have written.

And. I certainly have no patience for those who are more than willing to toss out their own past words as “I said that then but now …” or “I wish I had chosen my words more carefully.”

I will not suggest we should all get our words right every time <I surely don’t> but not all words are created equal and the really important ones … the potent ones … the ones that can construct or deconstruct … you should get right.

Well. At least right enough that someday in the future your career will not hang in the balance over a poorly thought out blog piece. Conversely, if you did think it out and your career can hang in the balance over it … well … you made a stand.

And backing off that stand simply to get to where you want to be is … well … not good.

My writing style, or lack of style, aside. I don’t understand ever being ‘trapped’ by owning your own words if you have decided to be “true to thineself” no matter what. I said something then and maybe I could have used better words but the basic thought premise is what I believe. Take it or leave it because getting the job, sitting at some table in a discussion, getting something I want doesn’t mean that thought can be discarded … if I believe it … well … I own it.

I will admit that owning up can be difficult but, as I once said, mistakes or things you have said in the past can be an awful lot like a hurricane … and “I” is always at the center of a hurricane — stay steady and hold the center.

I have no time and I have no patience for older people who do not own their words. And they should be ashamed of themselves for discarding thoughts and words so easily just to get something they want now. Thoughts and words are far too valuable to be that disposable.

================

“How are you going to meet life when you have passed through here and are so-called educated? Do you want to be swallowed up by the society, the culture in which you live, or are you going to oppose it, revolt against it, which will be a reaction and not a total action? Are you going to step into the easy way of life, conform, imitate, adjust to the pattern, whatever that pattern be, whether it be the establishment, or an establishment of a different kind, and so on? Or are you going to be a totally different human being, who is aware and knows he has to meet adversity and opposition and that, therefore, there is no easy way to satisfaction? Because most of us want a life of ease, of comfort, without trouble, which is almost impossible. And if you do meet opposition, will you run away from it?”

J. Krishnamurti

=============

Education systems have some significant flaws, but I am not sure we speak about the effect a flawed education system has on a citizenry psychologically often enough.

If you look at a lot of research these days, you will see many people are feeling skepticism in the value of education and, in particular, college. This whole discussion then seems to devolve into a simplistic argument between the haves and the have nots – the stupid people versus the non-stupid people (or, less harshly, the unenlightened versus the enlightened). It devolves into a suggestion of ‘brains versus no brains’. It’s, well, dumb.

On that thought I would argue there is no link between population and intelligence (research even says there isn’t) or even a link between geography and intelligence. What I would suggest is that a sense of ‘fatalism’ affects the potential of one’s intelligence. In other words, dormant intelligence – due to fatalism – is simply wasted potential.

Let me explain Fatalism in 2 parts

Fatalism version 1.

If you are in white middle class, you may expect to get a little more simply by standing still where you are, therefore,

you believe any extraneous variables are irrelevant to that ‘more’.  This may psychologically encourage you to believe if you ‘stand still, save energy & resources’ you will be fine. Now. Most people throw a lot of stuff into the ‘stand still.’ They work a regular job, take care of their home, are involved in family & community in some way and, well, you get it. The ‘stand still’ is simply a metaphor for ‘taking care of Life as it exists.’

This is where fatalism rears its ugly head.

Education and learning doesn’t work this way. Standing still means, well, getting ‘dumber.’ <to be harsh>. Knowledge is constantly evolving, morphing and reconfiguring what you know today, as it exists in totality, will be obsolete tomorrow. Yet, we have sold in education as ‘preparation for life’ in a world in which most people are just trying to keep their heads above water with everyday responsibilities. Re-engaging with ‘what you learned’ and finding its obsolete suggests the system failed you. This feeling gets exacerbated by the fact there are  people constantly engaged and learning so a perceived, and sometimes real, knowledge gap increases between those investing in learning and those who are not. Please note that this is not about smarts, intelligence or IQ, more often it is about real Life choices – disengaging from the grind of the day & Life, or not.

The fatalism is found in the thought that education is not an effective preparation for Life (particularly a higher education where dollar ROI steps in). This decreases its perceived value. At exactly the same time the brain (people) seek to have a value equation in their heads (assessing investment & return). What I mean by that is as the education value decreases, ‘common sense’ or practical experience (or, simplistically, not having a higher education) increases in perceived value. And. This value assessment has a halo effect not only to education itself but to those who elect the other path, gaining that education, and devaluing the people who do invest in education.

In other words.

If the education system failed me (and I am smart), it has little value not only to me but to other people … but at least I was smart enough to not invest as much energy as that other elitist dupe.

There is little faith in the system, therefore, there is a certain fatalism built into actually participating in the system.

Fatalism version 2.

If you are poor, you expect no matter how hard you work, no matter how much education you get, your circumstances are not likely to change significantly. And you know what? They are right. Regardless. While almost everyone knows a good education is an appealing choice to get out of your circumstances, most people actually view it in a gambler’s assessment way.

But this belief by the poor has seeped into the consciousness of white working class (lower middle income segment).

“The enduring narrative of the American dream is that if you study and get a college education and work hard, you can get ahead. The survey shows that many white working-class Americans, especially men, no longer see that path available to them. … It is this sense of economic fatalism, more than just economic hardship, which was the decisive factor in support for Trump among white working-class voters.”

Robert P. Jones, the CEO of PRRI

This is NOT an intelligence issue. I can say that maybe less than 3% of all Americans have IQs lower than 70 <which is a line for mentally challenged> and we know that the average <or the mean> is somewhere around 100 which means, well, the significant majority of Americans are certainly capable ‘being smart.’ This would suggest the system is failing capable people. Heck. Even Americans in the middle class who attend college exhibit profound ignorance:

A report in 2007 published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that on average 14,000 randomly selected college students at 50 schools around the country scored under 55 (out of 100) on a test that measured their knowledge of basic American civics. Less than half knew that Yorktown was the last battle of the American Revolution. Surprisingly, seniors often tested lower than freshmen. (The explanation was apparently that many students by their senior year had forgotten what they learned in high school.)

On the basis of their comprehensive approach, Delli Carpini and Keeter concluded that only 5% of Americans could correctly answer three-fourths of the questions asked about economics, only 11% of the questions about domestic issues, 14% of the questions about foreign affairs, and 10% of the questions about geography. The highest score? More Americans knew the correct answers to history questions than any other. Still, only 25% knew the correct answers to three-quarters of the history questions, which were rudimentary.

In 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad investigated Americans’ knowledge of world affairs. The task force concluded: “America’s ignorance of the outside world” is so great as to constitute a threat to national security.

Look. This topic matters as we think about how to speak with people. I will say that among the dozens of research studies post-2016 election I found some number about the working class and education that made me sit up a little and think.

In an analysis by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic 54% of white working-class Americans said investing in college education is a risky gamble, including 61% of white working-class men.

(I will note that white working-class voters who held this belief were almost twice as likely as their peers to support Trump)

In addition. Those with right-leaning political beliefs were the most likely to think college unnecessary. When it came to income, the middle classes did not think college was necessary, while the poorest and the wealthiest respondents still thought it did. Results to this question also varied according to race: 60% of Hispanics still think college is necessary; compared with 51% of blacks and 44% of whites.

Let me suggest two aspects with regard to Fatalism version 2:

• Failure in the system
• Hope in the system

If you believe the system has failed you in some way, you look down on the people who may have benefited from the system (they had an advantage you didn’t have) as well as doubt the system.

If you see the system as a stepping stone for the future, you place hope in the system (flaws and all).

One has given up and the other hasn’t.

One sees it as misplaced trust, and hope, and the other places hope in the system and, therefore, trusts it in some form or fashion.

I would suggest where you and on the failure/hope spectrum decides your fatalism.

Regardless. I have one word to conclude with in addressing this fatalism– context.

The fact is we, the people, may not have changed that much BUT the world around us has – & demands something different from us (and, consequently, the education system).

Contrary to expectations, by many measures the surveys showed the level of ignorance remaining constant over time:

In the 1990s, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter concluded that there was statistically little difference between the knowledge of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today (y some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.)

If our ignorance has not changed, one would have to assume our fatalism is actually a failure not necessarily in the system itself, but rather in our lack of context (perceptions).

Yes. The world environment has changed. But what makes people successful has not. It is, and always has been, a combination of effort, persistence, thinking & doing. I don’t believe Life has a formula but I would suggest if you manage these ingredients well you may not necessarily have boundless success, but you will absolutely increase the odds of success.

That said.

I think we talk about the education system incorrectly and we far too often ignore the psychological underpinnings of a fatalistic view of education. It may sound trite but the trick to solving part of our education problem may be in, well, attitudes. If we can disrupt fatalistic attitudes, in combination with some changes to the system itself, well, maybe we can educate to maximize everyone’s potential. hat, to me, sounds like a worthy objective.

=====

“What I hate is ignorance, smallness of imagination, the eye that sees no farther than its own lashes. All things are possible. Who you are is limited only by who you think you are.”

–

Egyptian Book of the Dead

======

There is gobs of advice information on how to communicate authentically but, in reality, authenticity comes from the soul; it comes naturally. So. I am dubious with regard to the value of the advice ‘how to be authentic’ information.

Anyway. I actually prefer discussing all of this is ‘being genuine.’

I call it genuine because authentic has become bullshit. Authentic has become business. It has become something you can learn to be – like a skill.

That’s nuts.

Frickin’ nuts.

To me it all started going awry through entertainers and people in the spotlight. I imagine every person who dances in the spotlight of fame gets coached and scripted and sculpted for the masses before stepping up to a podium or agreeing to accept the microphone and say something. I call it the ‘polishing of authenticity’. I will also call it, well, ungenuine.  I would also suggest we don’t want scripted from the people we suggest we want to know about or just know.

Ah.

‘suggest’

Here is where Authentic really goes off the rails. While yearning for this thing we call ‘authentic’, we also relentlessly parse each tone, syllable, gesture, word & thought <although mostly that is speculation on our part on with regard to what they really meant when they said what they said>. And that is where this whole thing gets slightly odd <or absurd … if not sad>.

We cannot tell what is genuine and what is not, what is authentic and what is not. That is just batshit crazy.  So we ask for ‘authenticity, seek authenticity, yet remain overly cynical of anyone actually offering authenticity and, worse, critique it fragment by fragment.

I put this in the same category as transparency. The only way to be transparent & believable is to be radically transparent. Similarly the only way to be authentic & believable is to be radically authentic.

Whew boy.

Ponder that.

Ponder how willing you are to be ‘believably authentic’ or, in my terms, ‘believably genuine.’

Ok. Let me make an example. Risking some shit from my readers, let me talk about Katy Perry <or even her ex,

Russell Brand> and authenticity and being genuine.

While people step up and speak as earnestly as possible and share truth and we consistently doubt them, there is Katy Perry who steps up in a slightly wacky persona <which you have to know is slightly scripted at minimum> and within the wackiness, uhm, seamlessly slides into a serious thought <reminder: she was quite articulate & ‘smart’ during the 2016 election>.  People got confused. Well. Some people did. How could this wacky entertainer, sometimes quirky, be smart and articulate and serious.? Well. One would almost suggest she was, uhm, being authentic in all aspects of who and what she is.

Look. I am fairly sure she is one of the more truly authentic people out in the public eye today.

I just think it’s a little out of whack that we doubt the sincere and accept the absurd.

I just think it’s a little out of whack we doubt seriousness and only see the nonseriousness.

I also think it’s a little out of whack how much we listen or do not listen for ‘things’ (cues to judge).

What I mean by that is we listen very very <very> hard for things in which we can turn to and point out flaws & ‘lies’ & things that make the person saying them ‘less than.’ And, yet, we don’t seem to listen as hard for the nuggets they share in which we can look at them and think ‘more than.’ Well. That would seem to say more about us then them, no?

Ponder.

Every time she speaks she is entertaining.

Every time she performs she seems to love what she does.

Every time she has an opportunity … she offers up something bigger & more important.

How is that different from anyone being authentic? Isn’t that almost the definition of genuine?

You speak to engage.

You genuinely agree with what you say and how you feel about what you are doing.

Every time you genuinely feel like you have something to contribute – you offer it.

Yet. The price to being authentic seems to be she isn’t being heard for the really important stuff.

Yet. the price YOU pay to being authentic seems to be you are not being heard for the really important stuff.

What a wacky world we live in these days. Who knew authentic would be so difficult.

Yes. I purposefully chose a lightning rod ‘Hollywood liberal’ to make a point. Choose your own lightning rod and see if I don’t have a point.

Anyway.

Maybe we should listen to the people who get the microphone shoved in front of their face with a little less cynicism.

Maybe we should seek to find a little more trust that some people truly are trying to tell us the truth.

Maybe we need to get better at discerning genuine versus ‘faux authenticity’ (practiced sincerity … as if that is a ‘thing’).

Maybe we need to remember you can only see as far as you think <and only hear as much as you unthink>.

Lastly. A cautionary note for businesses & brands. Brands are not people, but genuine is genuine. Deciding to ‘be authentic’ is not something you ‘decide’, you just, well, are (or you are not). My caution is the natural cynicism people have about authenticity. Because if you noted that point above, and you nodded your head, well, take note that in business that cynicism increases exponentially. That cynicism demands you don’t ‘be authentic’; it actually demands that you are authentic.

Which permits me to end where I began. You can ‘be authentic’ and maybe you can learn some faux skill to be authentic, but if you are authentic you are genuine. And genuine is invaluable in the world of business.

==

“Our humanity is not an attribute that we have received once and forever with our conception. It is a potentiality that we have to discover within us and progressively develop or destroy through our confrontation with the different experiences of suffering that will meet us through our life.”

—

Xavier Le Pichon

==

“You’ll have to help yourself.”

—

Lemony Snicket

===

This is about us. People. Individuals. Ok. Let’s call it “the power of I.”

Oh. And the fact we either grow or diminish what we have in terms of “I”. So. That begs the question … what is the power each of us have?

I would suggest that your power is actually a reflection of your character <and its resilience>. Character actually begets all the shit we truly care about: resiliency, personal responsibility, integrity, morality. In addition … it is character that dictates whether, and how, you either progressively develop or diminish.

And therein lies the true power of I.

Yet, we face an inherent ongoing challenge to this power. What do I mean? Character is not solid; it can get chipped.

What I mean by that is once you start taking shortcuts, the ones that appear to make the Life travel a little easier, a little cheat here … a little lie there… maybe a little taking advantage of the system … all of which chips a little of your integrity & character away. Now. That may not seem so bad, but, character is a non-renewable resource.

In addition. Each time you take a shortcut, no matter how small, and get away with it, it becomes even easier to decide to do it another time – that’s the slippery slope of character erosion.

Just think about what I just wrote for a minute.

You can be crappy at reading, writing and arithmetic or pretty much anything that people bitch about all the time, but you can’t effectively survive by being crappy at Life itself. And you certainly cannot get along with a crappy character.

You have to fight the good fight in Life, try and avoid the short cuts, and maintain your character and have faith, and courage, to keep character from eroding in the face of Life. Surprisingly … this is an ongoing fight day in and day out week after week.

Now. That said. Character is a tricky thing to self assess. Interestingly … we all think we know ourselves well, but, psychological studies show otherwise. In fact, <unfortunately> most of us are somewhat deluded about ourselves. And in that delusion we tend to be slightly misguided with regard to what we should do and how to do it <because the basic premise of who we are is flawed>.

This is really really important for us to think about because research has clearly linked social mobility to social and emotional skills. Emotional skills ranging from empathy and the ability to make and maintain relationships, mental toughness, delayed gratification and self-control all contribute to social mobility <and Life success>.

These research findings all point to the same conclusion — that character counts. Now. Research also points out that character is developed not necessarily instilled <experienced versus taught>.

Research shows that people who overcome adversity and realize their full potential tend to exhibit many of the same traits.

Traits that can be thought of as a belief in one’s ability to achieve, an understanding of the relationship between effort and reward, the patience to pursue long-term goals, the perseverance to stick with the task at hand, and the ability to bounce back from life’s inevitable setbacks.

Please note this does not suggest negative experiences increase character but rather that multiple experiences create depth of character (despite being a common wisdom quote, research has never show a relationship with “what hurts you make you stronger”). These various traits all fall under the broad heading of “character and resilience.”

Well. That said. If character is about experience then I get to bitch a little about personal accountability or personal responsibility. Or, in other words, responsibility for your own actions.

Today it seems like a shitload of people suggest their actions, faults, any excessive unacceptable behavior, or any … well … generally heinous or unacceptable behavior … are a reflection of outside influences, society driven/motivated, challenging home growing up, poverty, ethnicity, or any experience that we can identify as ‘generated pain’ which inevitably impacted us in childhood. Let’s title all of that under one big fat heading of “excuse.”

It is almost like no one, okay, far too many, wants to accept responsibility for their problems.

All I can think is that some people, well, this is what they learned. Which makes me ask, well, “who the hell taught them this?”

Anyway. On the other hand I know for sure that some of us learn that when you screw up it is on ‘you’ and no one else. This ‘learning’ teaches us that basically you can be frequently wrong, frequently stupid, frequently imperfect, but if you have been taught to be accountable — to admit it– you may get some shit from people but you will also be known as someone who is accountable for their own actions. You assume responsibility for all the good and bad that you do.

Yeah. This can be harrowing at times and incredibly rewarding at other times.

—————

“If your success is not on your own terms, if it looks good to the world but does not feel good in your heart, it is not success at all.”

Anna Quindlen

—————–

And this leads me to destiny, fate … and resilience.

Well. I believe we make our own destinies. A destiny may await us but we need to go & do things, to make choices, in order to actually get to our destiny.

Every day we are presented with choices.

Some we don’t even recognize.

Some we don’t even see <until they are past>.

Some we see and make a choice.

Our destiny is a reflection of these choices … made and not made.

This means making your destiny is hard because we see, and don’t see, choices and make, and don’t make, choices.

“Of course it’s hard! If it was easy, everyone would do it. Hard is what makes it great.”

<For the Love of the Game>

This is a Life truth. Shit. It is true about everything we do <even making the perfect cup of coffee in the morning>.

And that is where resilience comes into play.

Because you will always have disappointments. You will always have dreams that don’t come true. You will always have bad shit happening. And you will always make some bad choices.

And in all of what I just wrote we have a habit of getting stuck.

You get stuck knowing what you already know.

You get stuck on what happened in the past.

You get stuck thinking about shit that you cannot do anything about.

You get stuck on disappointments, dreams that don’t come true and bad choices.

We just get … well … stuck.

Resilience is all about being able to overcome all the simple tragedies you face in life. Not the big dramatic shit just the everyday shit.

=====

Brooke:

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it.”

Nathan:

As far as I’m concerned, Shaw was a punk.

‘Cause you know what? Tragedies happen. What are you gonna do? Give up? Quit?

No. I realize now that when your heart breaks, you gotta fight like hell to make sure you’re still alive. ‘Cause you are, and that pain you feel, that’s life.

The confusion and fear, that’s there to remind you that somewhere out there is something better. And that ‘something’ is worth fighting for.

=====

Resilience really isn’t about hope or dreams or vision for what you want & desire and doing what you need to do to stay on that path. Resilience is more about recognizing Life is hard and the practicality that if you want to make some progress and develop … you gotta fight like hell to not get stuck.

Simplistically you take personal responsibility for not getting stuck.

And you now what? You have to. Because Life makes it really really easy to get stuck. You can get stuck on so many things it is scary if you think about it. But you can really only get stuck if you let it happen.

Progress is, more often than not, in your hands. Which means your destiny is in your hands. That, my friends, is the power of I; a power driven by the engine of Character. Yes. Character is your destiny.